Analyzing Interpreting Strategy used by Low Proficiency EFL Students

Authors

  • Sakut Anshori Institut Agama Islam Negeri Curup
  • Yongki Institut Agama Islam Negeri Curup https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4085-2190
  • Prihantoro Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Curup
  • Fahmi Gunawan Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Kendari

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v10i1.1878

Keywords:

Student Interpreter, Low Proficiency, Interpreting, Strategies

Abstract

Background:
This study examines low-competency EFL students' first-time interpretation performance, concentrating on how they use their limited linguistic proficiency to interpret the messages. Student interpreters often face difficulties due to limited linguistic proficiency, which can result in misinterpretations in their first performance. However, there is currently a dearth of studies in this specific context.
Methodology:
Since how students use various techniques needs to be revealed in detail, their performances are recorded in the form of videos. Purposive sampling was used to select students who lacked fluency and interpreting experience. A corpus-assisted discourse analysis was applied to a dataset of 281 instances to identify recurring patterns in students' strategies. The analysis process was divided into two cycles to prevent data loss due to careless attention and insufficient reflection on human language patterns.
Findings:
Approximation was the most used strategy, occurring 46 times, followed by substitution at 38 instances, and compression appeared 30 times. Other strategies included reproduction (31 times), word-for-word translation (24 instances), and stalling (18 instances), with ten instances of omissions. The results further show that students keep having difficulty with vocabulary and general language transfer, which causes them to misinterpret messages. Nevertheless, students can achieve a balance between meaning loss and compression even with their insufficient language abilities in interpreting. A significant finding is the discovery of a new technique—cultural reference—that students employ to interpret utterances through cultural adaptation, which fundamentally alters how students interpret the language.
Conclusion:
This study concluded that students’ stronger cultural proficiency in one of their languages significantly affects their interpretation strategy. Students also frequently use wrong approximations to simplify complex information or manage time constraints while interpreting, leading to errors.
Originality:
The study's substantive findings clarify that inexperienced interpreters' strategies are influenced by cultural references, which contributes to fulfilling interpreting studies, particularly on first-time interpreting performance.

References

Albl-Mikasa, M., Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Heeb, A. H., Lehr, C., Boos, M., Kobi, M., … Elmer, S. (2020). Cognitive load in relation to non-standard language input Insights from interpreting, translation and neuropsychology. Translation, Cognition and Behavior, 3(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00044.alb

Arbain, A. (2023). Translation techniques used and its shift in Stranger Things movie. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v8i2.1758

Biggs, R., de Vos, A., Preiser, R., Clements, H., Maciejewski, K., & Schlüter, M. (2021). The routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339

Bozok, N. (2022). STRATEGIES AND ERRORS IN SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETING: A STUDENT-ORIENTED EXPERIMENT IN ENGLISH-TURKISH LANGUAGE PAIR. 32–75.

Coombe, C., Vafadar, H., & Mohebbi, H. (2020). Correction to: Language assessment literacy: what do we need to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Language Testing in Asia, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00114-1

Defrancq, B., & Fantinuoli, C. (2021). Automatic speech recognition in the booth. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 33(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19166.def

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Fifth Edition. In SAGE Publication Ltd (5th ed., Vol. 195). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1319-x

Dong, Y., Li, Y., & Zhao, N. (2019). Acquisition of interpreting strategies by student interpreters. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(4), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.1617653

Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Albl-Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Hunziker Heeb, A., & Lehr, C. (2020). Cognitive load in processing ELF: Translators, interpreters, and other multilinguals. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 9(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2039

Elmer, S., & Giroud, N. (2023). Simultaneous interpreting, brain aging, and cognition. Translation, Cognition and Behavior, 6(2), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00082.elm

Gieshoff, A. C., & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2024). Interpreting accuracy revisited: a refined approach to interpreting performance analysis. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 32(2), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2022.2088296

Gieshoff, A. C., & Heeb, A. H. (2023). Cognitive load and cognitive effort Probing the psychological reality of a conceptual difference. Translation, Cognition and Behavior, 6(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00073.gie

Gile, D. (2021). The Effort Models of Interpreting as a Didactic Construct. New Frontiers in Translation Studies, 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2070-6_7

Guo, M., Han, L., & Anacleto, M. T. (2023). Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools: Status Quo and Future Trends. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.11

Hofweber, J., & Marinis, T. (2023). What Sentence Repetition Tasks Can Reveal about the Processing Effort Associated with Different Types of Code-Switching. Languages, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010070

Lin, X., Lei, V. L. C., & Li, D. (2018). Which is more costly in Chinese to English simultaneous interpreting, “pairing” or “transphrasing”? Evidence from an fNIRS neuroimaging study. Neurophotonics, 5(02), 1. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.nph.5.2.025010

Loiseau, N., & Luchner, C. D. (2021). A, B and C decoded: understanding interpreters’ language combinations in terms of language proficiency. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 15(4), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2021.1911193

Lv, Q., & Liang, J. (2019). Is consecutive interpreting easier than simultaneous interpreting?–a corpus-based study of lexical simplification in interpretation. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 27(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1498531

Pöchhacker, F. (2022). Interpreters and interpreting: shifting the balance? Translator, 28(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2022.2133393

Pokorn, N. K., & Mikolič Južnič, T. (2020). Community interpreters versus intercultural mediators. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 15(1), 80–107. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20027.koc

Prezioso, E., & Alessandroni, N. (2022). Enacting memories through and with things: Remembering as material engagement. Memory Studies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980221108475

Rojo López, A. M., Foulquié-Rubio, A. I., Espín López, L., & Martínez Sánchez, F. (2021). Analysis of speech rhythm and heart rate as indicators of stress on student interpreters. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 29(4), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1900305

Saldana, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition). In Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-08-2016-1408

Seeber, K. G., & Arbona, E. (2020). What’s load got to do with it? A cognitive-ergonomic training model of simultaneous interpreting. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2020.1839996

Wang, X., & Wang, B. (2024). Identifying fluency parameters for a machine-learning-based automated interpreting assessment system. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 32(2), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2022.2133618

Yenkimaleki, M., & van Heuven, V. J. (2023). Objective Assessment of Students’ Interpreting Performance: An Experimental Study. Teaching English Language, 17(1), 227–265. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2022.164846

Zhang, L., & Long, S. (2023). A Study of C-E Conference Interpreting Strategies Based on the Effort Models. Frontiers in Educational Research, 6(4), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.25236/fer.2023.060420

Zhao, N. (2022). Speech Disfluencies in Consecutive Interpreting by Student Interpreters: The Role of Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(May), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.881778

Downloads

Published

2025-04-28